Homosexuality: 1981 Handbook for priesthood leaders

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Not everything can be distilled into a sound bite or quote that can be found in an online archive.

I'm not insisting that "everything" should be.

But those who set themselves up as accusers and slanderers (Greek diabolos) of the Brethren have a burden of proof to meet.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 This is why I’ve encouraged people to read the entirety of the messages from our prophets and apostles regarding the issue at hand.  We also are members of a church where much is spoken, taught, and directed in meetings  that are not transcribed and shared.

And none of which rises to the level of official doctrine or policy.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 One can read this 1981 document along with the documents it cites and then combine those with first-hand accounts of lived experiences,  and make some reasonable inferences.

"Reasonable inferences" do not satisfy the burden of proof.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Can it be proven that Church leaders promised gay men that they would be straight if they married a woman?  Of course not. 

Thank you for admitting that such was never the Church's position.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Are there enough witnesses and evidence that it was happening to be able to make a reasonable inference?  Yes

See above.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Can we admit the the Brethren erred in promulgating many of the principles in this 1981 document as their counsel to local leaders?  Or, is it more important to put them on a pedestal where they cannot make mistakes?  (These two questions are meant to be rhetorical, I’m not asking for an answer.)

 

[CV75]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Do you agree with this statement from the pamphlet?

Because our desires and inclinations do not require behavior contrary to the plan, yes, I do agree with the statement. We also have desires and inclinations such as our conscience or light of Christ, but neither do these require behavior contrary to the eternal plan. That would be contrary to the eternal plan… the plan is that we choose without compulsion. No matter what our challenging desires and inclinations might be that draw us away from the eternal plan (assuming we are accountable), we also have divine desires and inclinations, and we choose which desires and inclinations we act upon. That is a very basic principle.

I'm not seeing how your question addresses whether a behavior is incurable; desires and inclinations are clearly not the same as behavior. But if a behavior (or desire or inclination for that matter) is incurable, the person is not accountable for having it or doing anything about it. We are only accountable for those things we choose; those choices we make with the light we have.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’ve tried to find and answer the questions you are referencing above but the links do not take me to the specific posts and the times are different when we are in different times zones.  Also, you aren’t identifying authors.  All of that makes it tough to fine the exact questions you feel I’ve missed.  I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to find the questions.  Perhaps if there is something you are wondering about my views, you could ask again. 

I will see what I can do -- when I click on the links I gave, they take me to the actual post, just as the links you provide. What happens when you click on the links?

[CV75]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

You’ve asked me to respond to the following two questions:

 What is the conclusion you are driving for which specific change? Which change is most important to you?

I can’t make sense of what you are asking in the first question.  Perhaps you could restate it. 

As for which change is most important to me?  I don’t have any specific desire for a change that is more important.  What is most important for me is signs of the revealed will of God on this matter.  There isn’t any of that in this document, at least that I’ve been able to find. 

You say the Church position (as most ambiguously and broadly defined in my observation!) has changed. Which of all the items that you see as having changed is most important to you (and now I'll add, "and why?")?

I'm not asking what you want to see changed, just of what you have seen that has changed, which is most important to you, and why it is important.

[sjdawg]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:34 AM, Duncan said:

back in the day it was believed that gay people were insane, the US Military criminalized it in 1920, there was that "Lavender Scare" gay people are a threat to national security!  It wasn't just a Church view

Did the military claim their views were inspired by God?

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Did the military claim their views were inspired by God?

probably not, but I don't see this pamphlet saying that either

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not insisting that "everything" should be.

But those who set themselves up as accusers and slanderers (Greek diabolos) of the Brethren have a burden of proof to meet.

And none of which rises to the level of official doctrine or policy.

"Reasonable inferences" do not satisfy the burden of proof.

Thank you for admitting that such was never the Church's position.

See above.

 

Well, fortunately I don’t see any accusers and slanderers of the Brethren here.  

[sunstoned]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

probably not, but I don't see this pamphlet saying that either

No, but it was published by the church.  So are we to assume that church publications are just opinion?  (I personally think so, but I double TBMs do).

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

No, but it was published by the church.  So are we to assume that church publications are just opinion?  (I personally think so, but I double TBMs do).

well, "The Phone Call" was also published by the Church as was Johnny Lingo 2: Mahana goes to Paris

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You say the Church position (as most ambiguously and broadly defined in my observation!) has changed. Which of all the items that you see as having changed is most important to you (and now I'll add, "and why?")?

I'm not asking what you want to see changed, just of what you have seen that has changed, which is most important to you, and why it is important.

As Greg Prince said regarding this issue and the church:  Before there was knowledge, there was certainty. 

If I’ve got to pick one single change that is most important to me, it’s that.  Meaning that I’m grateful Church leadership has moved away from this notion of claiming to know what causes (and what doesn’t cause) homosexuality, that it is “curable”, and that it is somehow reflective of selfishness and poor choices.  

I think this place where Church leadership now seems to be — that of “not knowing” — gets us closer to being able to ask the questions that will get us the revelation and further light that we need. 

Great question.  Thanks for taking the time to ask it again for me to understand and respond.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

No, but it was published by the church.  So are we to assume that church publications are just opinion?  (I personally think so, but I double TBMs do).

 

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, "The Phone Call" was also published by the Church as was Johnny Lingo 2: Mahana goes to Paris

This 1981 doc wasn’t just “published by the Church”.  Note the second page:  it came from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

This 1981 doc wasn’t just “published by the Church”.  Note the second page:  it came from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

did I mention that Johnny Lingo 2 was in 3D? if I understand your's and California boy contention correctly this was a revelation from the Church yet it contains glaring mistakes so how can it contain mistakes coming from God that people based life decisions on?

[clarkgoble]

I'm not going to wade through 13 pages on this. But did anyone mention that pulling out obscure pamphlets from 40 years ago isn't exactly being about transparency anymore? Is this MormonLeaks showing it's colors? (Not that they've ever looked particularly good - especially after releasing that video of some poor kid at BYU)

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not going to wade through 13 pages on this. But did anyone mention that pulling out obscure pamphlets from 40 years ago isn't exactly being about transparency anymore? Is this MormonLeaks showing it's colors? (Not that they've ever looked particularly good - especially after releasing that video of some poor kid at BYU)

These leaks have going on for how long now? when are they going to get to the good stuff? it's not vital information or shocking, call me when they have a picture of the Book of Mormon plates, the lost manuscript or Paul Dunn's rookie card

[Storm Rider]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:35 AM, sunstoned said:

Once again we see that great apologetic defense:  ad hominem attack.

You guys are so predicable. 

When you say that I hope you are looking in a mirror.  Hey pot, meet kettle.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As Greg Prince said regarding this issue and the church:  Before there was knowledge, there was certainty. 

If I’ve got to pick one single change that is most important to me, it’s that.  Meaning that I’m grateful Church leadership has moved away from this notion of claiming to know what causes (and what doesn’t cause) homosexuality, that it is “curable”, and that it is somehow reflective of selfishness and poor choices.  

I think this place where Church leadership now seems to be — that of “not knowing” — gets us closer to being able to ask the questions that will get us the revelation and further light that we need.

Just in case anyone isn't aware: The highlighted portion is a recognition signal in certain circles. It's essentially a code phrase for "The silly old codgers will eventually wise up and realise that we were right all along about Same Sex Marriage."

That's not to say that Rockpond, or any of the others in his corner, would actually use those words. But it's ultimately what it boils down to.

But there is still a grain of truth in there. Because it is certain that they need something to help them realise that the Brethren are right about SSM, and maybe it will take a revelation for them to finally get it.

I'll make a deal with you, Rockpond: You don't hold your breath waiting for the Church of Jesus Christ to join you in the SSM camp, and I won't hold my breath waiting for you to align yourself with the Church on that question.

But I promise you that the Church is not going to accept SSM.

Edited December 18, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Well, fortunately I don’t see any accusers and slanderers of the Brethren here.  

Have you ever read 2 Nephi 28:22?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not insisting that "everything" should be.

But those who set themselves up as accusers and slanderers (Greek diabolos) of the Brethren have a burden of proof to meet.

And none of which rises to the level of official doctrine or policy.

"Reasonable inferences" do not satisfy the burden of proof.

Thank you for admitting that such was never the Church's position.

See above.

 

Put me on the witness stand.  I will testify before God that promise was made to me by church leaders.  And I will testify that it was a promise they said came from God.  So yes, that was a bald face lie.  And you know that I am not the only person such a promise was made.  You also know that the pamphlet we have been discussing encourages gay men to date women And you know that the reason for gay men to date women was to encourage marriage.  And you know that this very pamphlet promised that if a gay person wants bad enough to be straight, then that is possible.  And you know that the prophet himself declared that policy was no longer to be used.  To sit on this board and pretend that none of this happened is nothing but dishonest and game playing.  And frankly, I am sick of your games.  Do you know why?  Because church leaders were playing games with my life by making such a promise.  And I had to pay the consequences for it. So I readily admit that I am very short in the patience department for someone like you to come along and tell me that such a promise was not given to me.  Why the hell do you think I got married?????

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Just in case anyone isn't aware: The highlighted portion is a recognition signal in certain circles. It's essentially a code phrase for "The silly old codgers will eventually wise up and realise that we were right all along about Same Sex Marriage."

That's not to say that Rockpond, or any of the others in his corner, would actually use those words. But it's ulitmately what it boils down to.

But there is still a grain of truth in there. Because it is certain that they need something to help them realise that the Brethren are right about SSM, and maybe it will take a revelation for them to finally get it.

I'll make a deal with you, Rockpond: You don't hold your breath waiting for the Church of Jesus Christ to join you in the SSM camp, and I won't hold my breath waiting for you to align yourself with the Church on that question.

But I promise you that the Church is not going to accept SSM.

Don't count me in your fantasy.  I don't think the church will eventually get further light and knowledge on this issue.  You want to know why?  So far there is absolutely no evidence that they have EVER gotten any light and knowledge from God on this issue.  Instead there is a whole lot of evidence that they make their policies from every source other than God where the information is true or not.

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Put me on the witness stand.  I will testify before God that promise was made to me by church leaders.  And I will testify that it was a promise they said came from God.  So yes, that was a bald face lie.  And you know that I am not the only person such a promise was made.  You also know that the pamphlet we have been discussing encourages gay men to date women And you know that the reason for gay men to date women was to encourage marriage.  And you know that this very pamphlet promised that if a gay person wants bad enough to be straight, then that is possible.  And you know that the prophet himself declared that policy was no longer to be used.  To sit on this board and pretend that none of this happened is nothing but dishonest and game playing.  And frankly, I am sick of your games.  Do you know why?  Because church leaders were playing games with my life by making such a promise.  And I had to pay the consequences for it. So I readily admit that I am very short in the patience department for someone like you to come along and tell me that such a promise was not given to me.  Why the hell do you think I got married?????

Have you ever written a letter to the Church about this? i'd be interested in what someone there says. I probably wouldn't pick Pres. Monson as he seems to be declining but others, why not?

[kiwi57]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Put me on the witness stand.  I will testify before God that promise was made to me by church leaders.  And I will testify that it was a promise they said came from God.  So yes, that was a bald face lie.

I think you are projecting.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

 And you know that I am not the only person such a promise was made.

I have heard such things before. However, I do not know something I have only heard at second had.

And when that something is never documented anywhere in any first-hand source, that tells me something that I do know.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

 You also know that the pamphlet we have been discussing encourages gay men to date women And you know that the reason for gay men to date women was to encourage marriage.

I also know that the pamphlet nowhere promises anyone that getting married will cure their gayness.

The claim that it does make such a promise is the one and only "bald face lie" that I can see anywhere.

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

 And you know that this very pamphlet promised that if a gay person wants bad enough to be straight, then that is possible.  And you know that the prophet himself declared that policy was no longer to be used.

You are deliberately, consciously, intentionally and with careful calculation, misrepresenting what the Prophet said.

He never said it was a "policy." You tried to pretend that he did, but he didn't. Because it wasn't. Nor did he say anything about "no longer." Again, you tried to pretend that he did, in order to imply that he had somehow approved of it previously; but he hadn't.

The reality is simply that he had heard about such things, which did not come from him, and decided to let everyone know that they were wrong.

He was inspired, you see.

But could you bring yourself to admit that? I should live so long! Admitting that the leaders of the Church are right about these things doesn't support your agenda of undermining their moral authority, does it?

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

 To sit on this board and pretend that none of this happened is nothing but dishonest and game playing.  And frankly, I am sick of your games.  Do you know why?

Because you want that field all to yourself?

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because church leaders were playing games with my life by making such a promise.  And I had to pay the consequences for it. So I readily admit that I am very short in the patience department for someone like you to come along and tell me that such a promise was not given to me.  Why the hell do you think I got married?????

As for why, I don't pretend to know. Only you can answer that question.

And given your obvious axe to grind, I doubt that I could rely upon any answer you might offer.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

probably not, but I don't see this pamphlet saying that either

There are numerous references that this publication comes from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12,  and is THEIR position on homosexuality.  Now if you believe that the first presidency doesn't issue positions on things without revelation, then you are right And I might even agree with you that no revelation is ever received.  But to make that stand, you have to take that stand that none of the positions taken by the First Presidency and 12 Apostles is given by revelation.  Something I might also agree with you on.

The pamphlet refers regularly to church beliefs in supporting actions church leaders should take and how to cure gay members from being gay.  Here is just one example from the beginning of the brochure.  

From the pamphlet

Quote

 

A. The Position of the Church on

Homosexuality

The First Presidency has issued the following statement to priesthood leaders:

As we have previously stated, homosexuality is a sin in the same degree as adultery and fornication. Powerful forces are seeking to estab- lish this sinful practice as an accept- able way of life. Homosexuality in men and women runs counter to divine objectives and the intended destiny of mankind. The Lord has declared, "For behold, this is my work and my glory- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). Some claim homosexuality is incurable, therefore they seek to be considered a legitimate minority group protected by law. We should not be deceived by these false rationalizations. We must never lose our perspective amidst the world's clamor to justify and normalize immorality. According to the Lord's revealed word, the only acceptable sexual relationship occurs within the family between a husband and a wife.

 

At the very beginning of this pamphlet it clearly states that this statement comes from the First Presidency. And that statement states that the idea that homosexuality is incurable is false rationalization.  This is the First Presidency's belief. They were wrong.

Quote

Professionals do not agree on the causes of homosexual behavior. How- ever, most professional research supports the view that homosexual behavior is learned, and is influenced by unhealthy emotional development in early childhood. This explanation is most consistent with what the Lord has revealed concerning the eternal nature of man as the offspring of divine parents.

Do you see how the church admits that there are multiple opinions in 1981 on the cause of homosexuality?  Do you see how it is their belief that this view of homosexuality is in line with what the Lord has revealed?  They tie this pamphlet beliefs directly to what they believe God has revealed to them.

After stating that this position is in line with what the Lord has revealed, it continues on to explain that when someone becomes gay, it is the fathers fault.  It is the mothers fault that he became gay and he is gay because he masterbated.  Is that in line with what the Lord has revealed about gay members?  Did God really reveal that homosexuality is the parents fault?

Should I continue?  

 

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I think you are projecting.

I have heard such things before. However, I do not know something I have only heard at second had.

And when that something is never documented anywhere in any first-hand source, that tells me something that I do know.

I also know that the pamphlet nowhere promises anyone that getting married will cure their gayness.

The claim that it does make such a promise is the one and only "bald face lie" that I can see anywhere.

You are deliberately, consciously, intentionally and with careful calculation, misrepresenting what the Prophet said.

He never said it was a "policy." You tried to pretend that he did, but he didn't. Because it wasn't. Nor did he say anything about "no longer." Again, you tried to pretend that he did, in order to imply that he had somehow approved of it previously; but he hadn't.

The reality is simply that he had heard about such things, which did not come from him, and decided to let everyone know that they were wrong.

He was inspired, you see.

But could you bring yourself to admit that? I should live so long! Admitting that the leaders of the Church are right about these things doesn't support your agenda of undermining their moral authority, does it?

Because you want that field all to yourself?

As for why, I don't pretend to know. Only you can answer that question.

And given your obvious axe to grind, I doubt that I could rely upon any answer you might offer.

I have answered that question.  And yes I have an axe to grind.  And that axe started with church leaders testifying of a promise from God that if I married a woman, I would become straight.

Of course you would have never received a similar promise.  Did you ever go to a church leader and tell them you were gay and ask them what you should do?

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have answered that question.  And yes I have an axe to grind.  And that axe started with church leaders testifying of a promise from God that if I married a woman, I would become straight.

Of course you would have never received a similar promise.  Did you ever go to a church leader and tell them you were gay and ask them what you should do?

If that had ever been the position of the Church, it would have been documented somewhere. Instead, the only documentation you can point to is a President of the Church stating unequivocally that such was not the Church's position.

And then you tried to work it over to mean the opposite of what it said.

Not much room left for trust, is there?

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

If that had ever been the position of the Church, it would have been documented somewhere. Instead, the only documentation you can point to is a President of the Church stating unequivocally that such was not the Church's position.

And then you tried to work it over to mean the opposite of what it said.

Not much room left for trust, is there?

Just call a spade a spade.

Are you saying that CaliforniaBoy is lying when he claims that he was told to marry a woman?